July 28, 2004 |
Teacher Strikes: Binding arbitration is the answer
Hans and Sen. Dave Schmidt (R), Mill Creek endorse this issue together in a letter to the Seattle Times.
Now that the longest teacher strike in our state`s history is over, it is time to make sure this doesn`t happen again. We must prevent strikes and show teachers we respect and support them. Both goals are critical to providing the best possible education for our children.
People are talking about two proposed solutions. They could not be more different, and it`s worth having a public debate before we choose one or the other.
Option 1: Fine or jail teachers
Some politicians and interest groups say the way to prevent strikes is to fine striking teachers up to $10,000 a day. As one state representative recently said, "Only when strikes mean real consequences for teachers will we see more talking and less walking." Let`s put aside our anger about this conflict and think about the possible reactions to this raising of the stakes.
Teaching is a magic spark of connection between a student and a teacher. A connection that nurtures the desire to learn and grow must have a safe, joyful school to grow in. Like life itself, the learning connection will not do well in a school that is full of anger, tension and strife.
Forcing teachers to be in the classroom hurts our children`s education. Teachers, like other workers, have other means of withholding their work besides strikes. "Work to contract," sick outs, slow downs, and picket lines that truckers bringing supplies to the schools will not cross are all possibilities, with perhaps even less desirable consequences than strikes. Raising the stakes for teachers just creates more anger and conflict. Labor and civil-rights movements historically have responded to increased sanctions by willingly accepting the jail time or penalties. People walk picket lines when it means beatings, losing their job, and tear gas. In the last 30 years, our state has had 80 teacher strikes, and opponents got 28 injunctions. Twenty four times the teachers stood their ground and risked jail. As one recent striking teacher said of injunctions, "It just solidifies the membership to stand together." In 1973, three teachers in Vancouver, Clark County, even went to jail for 45 days.
Are we willing to just play higher-stakes games with our children`s education?
Do we really want to just increase the stakes in conflicts where our children are innocent victims?
Increasing the penalties on teachers also begs the question: What is the penalty for the school administration that refuses to compromise?
Option 2: Prevent strikes
Binding arbitration is why you dont see cops and firefighters go on strike. It`s a tool that outlaws strikes, respects teachers and puts equal pressure on both sides to reach an agreement.
Binding arbitration — which currently is not required of teachers and school districts — is a fail-safe method that is only invoked as a last resort, if negotiations fail, while keeping people working. Did you know that Snohomish County sheriff`s deputies have worked without a contract since January? They are only now going to binding arbitration over a few remaining items to settle a contract. During these months they have provided excellent service knowing an equitable solution would be reached.
In contract negotiations for firefighters, police officers and local governments, only about 15 percent of cases actually go to arbitration. Its not used 85 percent of the time because both sides negotiate in good faith, since they both want a say in the outcome. Workers are respected, work is done, settlements are reached.
With binding arbitration, both sides have big incentives to negotiate. Strikes arent an option because they aren`t necessary. Management can't stonewall. The arbitrator agreed to by both sides is brought in only if the negotiations fail, and that arbitrator is required to consider the financial circumstance of the district. If an arbitrator is unreasonable, he or she will never work again. And the decision can be appealed to a locally elected judge.
When we have conflict in our schools, the only winners are the enemies of public education.
Those who oppose this reform need to answer a basic question: If binding arbitration is a great idea for cops and firefighters, why withhold that solution from our teachers, students and schools?
Why ask for more strikes and chaos?
We can have peace in our classrooms and better education for our children.
Now that the longest teacher strike in our state`s history is over, it is time to make sure this doesn`t happen again. We must prevent strikes and show teachers we respect and support them. Both goals are critical to providing the best possible education for our children.
People are talking about two proposed solutions. They could not be more different, and it`s worth having a public debate before we choose one or the other.
Option 1: Fine or jail teachers
Some politicians and interest groups say the way to prevent strikes is to fine striking teachers up to $10,000 a day. As one state representative recently said, "Only when strikes mean real consequences for teachers will we see more talking and less walking." Let`s put aside our anger about this conflict and think about the possible reactions to this raising of the stakes.
Teaching is a magic spark of connection between a student and a teacher. A connection that nurtures the desire to learn and grow must have a safe, joyful school to grow in. Like life itself, the learning connection will not do well in a school that is full of anger, tension and strife.
Forcing teachers to be in the classroom hurts our children`s education. Teachers, like other workers, have other means of withholding their work besides strikes. "Work to contract," sick outs, slow downs, and picket lines that truckers bringing supplies to the schools will not cross are all possibilities, with perhaps even less desirable consequences than strikes. Raising the stakes for teachers just creates more anger and conflict. Labor and civil-rights movements historically have responded to increased sanctions by willingly accepting the jail time or penalties. People walk picket lines when it means beatings, losing their job, and tear gas. In the last 30 years, our state has had 80 teacher strikes, and opponents got 28 injunctions. Twenty four times the teachers stood their ground and risked jail. As one recent striking teacher said of injunctions, "It just solidifies the membership to stand together." In 1973, three teachers in Vancouver, Clark County, even went to jail for 45 days.
Are we willing to just play higher-stakes games with our children`s education?
Do we really want to just increase the stakes in conflicts where our children are innocent victims?
Increasing the penalties on teachers also begs the question: What is the penalty for the school administration that refuses to compromise?
Option 2: Prevent strikes
Binding arbitration is why you dont see cops and firefighters go on strike. It`s a tool that outlaws strikes, respects teachers and puts equal pressure on both sides to reach an agreement.
Binding arbitration — which currently is not required of teachers and school districts — is a fail-safe method that is only invoked as a last resort, if negotiations fail, while keeping people working. Did you know that Snohomish County sheriff`s deputies have worked without a contract since January? They are only now going to binding arbitration over a few remaining items to settle a contract. During these months they have provided excellent service knowing an equitable solution would be reached.
In contract negotiations for firefighters, police officers and local governments, only about 15 percent of cases actually go to arbitration. Its not used 85 percent of the time because both sides negotiate in good faith, since they both want a say in the outcome. Workers are respected, work is done, settlements are reached.
With binding arbitration, both sides have big incentives to negotiate. Strikes arent an option because they aren`t necessary. Management can't stonewall. The arbitrator agreed to by both sides is brought in only if the negotiations fail, and that arbitrator is required to consider the financial circumstance of the district. If an arbitrator is unreasonable, he or she will never work again. And the decision can be appealed to a locally elected judge.
When we have conflict in our schools, the only winners are the enemies of public education.
Those who oppose this reform need to answer a basic question: If binding arbitration is a great idea for cops and firefighters, why withhold that solution from our teachers, students and schools?
Why ask for more strikes and chaos?
We can have peace in our classrooms and better education for our children.